| |
|
Various people wrote:
"However, if someone is going to defend Sambo Binks based on some overheard conversation suggesting ze was gay, I'm gonna say that's silly. Before, during, and after Menace, almost everyone who saw it recognized a problem with the representation."
"Almost everyone" is a completely pointless phrase. Take a poll, did you? The gay Jar Jar thing isn't an overheard conversation - it was discussed in Salon and likely elsewhere as well, though not to the degree as the minstrel thing. What about black viewers who didn't have a problem with it? What about African studies professors who called the accusations nonsense? Do they not count? If people think they see something there, it doesn't actually mean it IS there.
"Played by a black actor and capitalizing on rep's from the turn of the last century, he was at least an embarrassment if not intentionally defamatory. In Binks's case, as in most of the others, it's difficult to point to a particular culture because he's pastiche: a walk here, a dance there, an accent here... I trust you get the idea."
No, I don't. This complete inability to nail down precisely what's even being stereotyped is proof enough that there's nothing there! And again, the fact that different factions insist the same characters are stereotypes of DIFFERENT groups of people pretty strongly suggests the racist viewpoint rests in the mind of the beholder, not the characters themselves.
"The viewer can count on one hand the number of african americans with speaking parts in all five films."
Yes, this is a valid criticism, although the human cast of the series itself is fairly small, and the minority representation of characters not linked to the original trilogy in the prequels is pretty good. It's interesting though that all of the African American characters are ultimately good, while the Empire is comprised entirely of European colonial types. And if Lucas really had a problem with black characters would the top-ranking human Jedi be Sam Jackson?
"The new alien army in Clones sports a language heavy with glottal stops and unvoiced clicks."
So how is this offensive or stereotypical, exactly? Is Huttese offensive to English speakers, since the language is based on phenomes we use? Is the Wookie growl offensive to bears? Or gee, could it be that people speak differently, and aliens might be the same way?
"The latest stupid racist analysis emerged last week, with some Hispanics claiming the clone army is a racist dig at Mexican workers working across the border. I suppose it doens't matter that the actor who plays Jango Fett is a New Zealander of Maori descent! 'Neat. Do you have a link for this?'"
Should be a headline on www.theforce.net from this week. I think it was one of the Detroit papers.
"Calling something like this "stupid" is a bit inflamatory isn't it? Are these hispanic folks sucking applesauce through straws and reading at a pre-school level or is it possible that they have a legitimate investment in representations on-screen? Yes, Jingo's not Hispanic. No, he doesn't sound Hispanic. He kind of looks Hispanic, though. And he's certainly not white, like most of the humans in the films. Why, as a director, make that decision? Why, as a viewer, make that conection?"
It may be inflammatory but it's also true. It is ignorance to read Hispanic coding into the Jango character based on the way he LOOKS. That's what racism is. It doesn't matter who does it. The fact that Temuera Morrison is a New Zealander with Maori roots isn't difficult to research, if anyone wanted an educated opinion before concocting bizarre NAFTA theories.
"It's weird arguing these points with the Negasonic Teenage Warhead, because (s)he sounds so much like I did back in 1999 when I was trying very hard to defend The Phantom Menace to myself and others, because I so wanted it all to be right and good. But it's not."
Phantom Menace is crap. Clones isn't. I'm willing to slash into the former if that's what you want. And as I've said before, I'm willing to point out all the things in Clones that are crap, especially the script and acting.
"No, Jar Jar is not essential to having Palpatine sieze power, because based on how dull-witted most of the heroes in the new trilogy are, it's not as though Jar Jar is the only one who could have been duped so easily. After all, the motion to have Palpatine given emergency powers was put to a vote, and it won."
What other character could have made the motion? Everyone else is opposed to raising an army.
"Seeing that even the most powerful Jedi can't clue themselves in to what Palpatine is up to, it's pretty obvious that Mr. Binks is not the only gullible dope in the galaxy. There's no reason why Bail Organa couldn't have been the guy who served Jar Jar's role in the senate."
Except that Organa appears to have doubts about the army as well, judging by the final scene. And the Jedi being duped is a major plot point, not a sign of their stupidity. Although the librarian was pretty fucking weak.
"All of the evidence you state to prove that Amidala has any depth of character is all very weak - having things happen to a character is not the same as a character having depth."
She does do things, as I demonstrated in a list. You seem incapable of producing any evidence to support your reading, despite having had several opportunities. Hmm. Wonder why.
"I'll budge a bit and allow that it's more realistic that characters like Watto, the Neimodians, Jar Jar, etc aren't meant to be 100% specific caricatures, but they certainly are based on a combination of different stereotypes, I can't see how anyone could question that."
I'll budge a bit to, and say that if this is true then - so what? But more to the point, you still haven't actually mentioned which specific stereotypes are being used, and why nobody can agree on them. Let's use the Nemoidians as an example. You claimed they were caricatures of Japanese businessmen. I'm willing to be convinced. On what specific things are you basing your claim?
"In the original trilogy, all of the aliens were just weird creatures that didn't have anything to do with different types of humans on earth - this has all changed, and for no good reason." As YNH says, it's dangerous for this sort of thing to be in children's entertainment, there's no reason for ethnic stereotypes to be mixed into characters who are very dubious in the context of the story."
If the characters are based on stereotypes - and nobody's been able to demonstrate this with specific attributes - is that then necessarily bad? And if the real villains of the piece are all stuffy white guys, what does that say?
"Also, I'm not sure if I think George Lucas is a "hardcore liberal", there's some lip service about democracy and hating corporate co-option of government, but I get the impression that Lucas ultimately sides with The Empire."
Right. Which is why they win in the end and crush those obnoxious, integrationist rebels. I'm not reading Lucas the liberal from the films themselves, but rather interviews and so forth. This is the man, after all, who's said Return of the Jedi is his commentary on Vietnam. I never said he didn't have a screw loose!
"The problem is, the more you think about this stuff, the more you realize there is nothing there at all - the "politics" in the new trilogy is little more than a pretense of depth."
How so? |
|
|
